Toilet use at Holyrood will not be ‘policed', MSPs told
Concerns were raised at Holyrood over this month's decision by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (SPCB) on toilet facilities.
Green co-leader Patrick Harvie referenced an open letter to the parliamentary decision-making body, saying that this expressed 'serious concerns about the decision that has been made recently' to ban transgender people from the toilet facilities of their preferred gender.
The letter has been signed by 17 MSPs from four political parties, and 31 members of staff, Mr Harvie said.
Raising the issue in an urgent question at Holyrood, Mr Harvie demanded a commitment that 'nobody will be asked to provide birth certificates or other paperwork' when using a toilet if someone suspects them of being transgender.
Christine Grahame, a member of the SPCB, told the Green co-leader: 'I can assure him this is not going to be policed by the corporate body.'
She added: 'We are certainly not monitoring the use of public facilities as a corporate body.'
Her comments came after the SPCB announced the change earlier this month, with the move coming in the wake of a landmark Supreme Court ruling.
Judges there made clear the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the 2010 Equality Act 'refer to a biological woman and biological sex' – with the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) stating as a result that in workplaces which are open to the public, transgender people should not be permitted to use facilities which correspond with their identified gender.
Speaking about the SPCB's decision, Ms Grahame insisted: 'There is nothing in here that will take away from the rights of anybody entering this Parliament.'
Adding that Holyrood decision makers were awaiting 'full guidance from EHRC' she said the current poliicy was 'simply interim' – appealing to those concerned about the change with 'bear with the corporate body until we are able to do a full consultation'.
Ms Grahame stressed the SPCB had made a 'collective and cross-party decision' on the matter, which sought to 'provide assurance it is committed to offering an inclusive experience for all of those who work in and visit Holyrood'.
Equalities campaigners, however, had already complained the decision leaves transgender people feeling excluded at the 'heart of Scotland's democracy'.
But Ms Grahame said: 'I certainly hope and expect that this will not put anybody in this Parliament into a hostile environment, that is not the culture within this building.
'This simply an interim decision, an interim practical choice we made to comply with Supreme Court ruling.
'There is now a full consultation going ahead and I fully expect at the end of that members will see that important balance of the rights of individuals, whatever their position, is dealt with appropriately and with sensitivity.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
24 minutes ago
- The Independent
Who'll draw first blood in the tariff wars: Trump or the US courts?
If there was one difference between Donald Trump 's first term in the White House and his second, it was said to be his lessons learned. Nowhere was this more apparent than in the speed of his appointments and the torrent of executive orders he issued in his first hours. Trump's brazen demonstration of executive power seemed at odds with everything most people learn about US democracy as being a system of checks and balances designed also to rein in presidential excess. But it met with little challenge – unlike in his first term. Something similar applied to the appearance of the unelected billionaire tech CEO Elon Musk as head of a new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to scythe through whatever he might define as waste and impediments to getting the presidential job done. Suddenly, with yesterday's ruling from the US Federal Court of Trade, rejecting Trump's imposition of new trade tariffs, and Musk's announcement that he has l eft the administration, the Trump system, such as it was, seems in disarray more profound than his usual impression of chaos. Whether these developments mean that Trumpism 2.0 has hit its limits is another matter. The ruling is the move that will have the greatest immediate impact, although one that is largely interim as Trump is set to appeal, precipitating an eventual showdown at the US Supreme Court. In the meantime, the status of the tariff increases unilaterally announced by Trump on 2 April, what he called 'Liberation Day', remains uncertain, along with the various compromise agreements reached by some – including by the UK – and under negotiation by others, including the EU. Having upended the global trading system once, with dramatic effects on international markets that have largely been weathered, Trump will have few qualms about further disruption, not least because his comprehensive re-ordering of tariffs remains a cornerstone of his economic policy and enjoys wide popularity among his voters. Those trading with the US have little choice but to sit tight and let the US constitutional system take its course. Some, with the capacity to do so, rushed to export goods to the US under the old rules, but others either lacked the capacity or were not so lucky. For the time being, it is probably reasonable to conclude that a large part of the international trading system is on hold. As for the likely outcome, it is hard to envisage a victory for Trump, if not impossible. Two groups brought cases in the Trade Court: an independent group called the Liberty Justice Center made representations on behalf of small importers and a group of state governors claimed their states' interests had been damaged, with a three-person tribunal finding that Trump had misused a declaration of emergency to alter tariff arrangements essentially by decree, without consideration, as would otherwise be required, by the US Congress. The Supreme Court will have to judge whether there were grounds for declaring an emergency, and, even if there were, whether that gave him the power to override Congress. The Supreme Court – perhaps, but not entirely, out of self-interest – is seen as preferring to uphold rather than weaken the system of checks and balances, which would tend to suggest a Trump defeat. However, nothing can be ruled out. More surprising perhaps is that it has taken four months and resorting to a specialist federal court to cause Trump's first second-term stumble. In his first term, practically every move he made encountered resistance, whether from Congress, the courts, or street protests. Or, in the case of his foreign policy, the 'Russia-gate' claims of collusion with the Kremlin. This time around the balance of power in Washington is different. There is the weakness of the Democrats following Kamala Harris 's defeat and now embroiled in recriminations over Joe Biden's fitness for office, the fact that Republicans narrowly control both Houses of Congress, Trump's clear electoral mandate, and the early dismissals he authorised in the FBI and other departments that had stymied him the first time around. The departure of Elon Musk may be seen as having far less of an impact on the administration than the possible enforced reversal of Trump's trade tariffs. After all, it was evident practically from day one that the White House could not be big enough for both of them. It could also be argued that Musk has already had an outsized influence and not just in the Trump White House. The enthusiasm with which he set about slashing government departments, abolishing diversity measures, and government-funded operations such as USAID, delighted Trump supporters but also gave the voting public in many other countries new ideas about what might be feasible. If Trump loses his tariff battle in the courts it is Musk's brief and constitutionally questionable tenure at the White House that could have a farther-reaching legacy.
Daily Record
37 minutes ago
- Daily Record
Save Loch Lomond campaign protests at Scottish Parliament over 'shameful' Flamingo Land plan
Ross Greer said the Flamingo Land development would be a "scar" on the Loch Lomond landscape if it is allowed to go ahead. Protesters have gathered at Holyrood to demand the SNP Government overturns a decision to allow a "mega resort" to be built on the banks of Loch Lomond. Ross Greer said today it was "shameful" that Nationalist ministers have so far refused to overturn a decision by its officials to give the green light to Flamingo Land to construct a £40m tourist destination close to Balloch town centre. The long-running planning application was initially rejected by the Loch Lomond National Park authority in September last year after thousands of public objections were received. But that decision was overturned by the Scottish Government Reporter, subject to a legal agreement between Flamingo Land and park bosses. Flanked by protesters outside the Scottish Parliament, the Green MSP said: "There are simply no reasons to accept this application. It would be a scar on the natural landscape of Loch Lomond, it would be devastating for the local community, and for 10 years we have successfully made that case. "For 10 years, we have built our movement to protect Loch Lomond. At every step of the way we were succesful because the argument and the evidence were on our side. "And now, at the very end of this process, we have a Government official overturning local democracy, overturning a decision made on an incredible weight of evidence against the application. "We now have ministers of a Scottish Government that claims to stand up for Scotland deciding that, in this case, they simply will not do so, they will allow this destructive mega resort to go ahead. "We say, absolutely not. We can still save Loch Lomond, Government ministers still have the opportunity to recall and reject that decision." He added: "Appallingly, when I asked the Scottish Government planning minister if they would do that, they emphatically said no. Absolutely shameful. Scottish Government ministers not willing to stand up for Scotland's world famous natural environment." Greer, who has led protests against the development, called on SNP ministers to intervene on the matter - following a precedent established in 2008 when Trump was permitted to build a golf course in Aberdeenshire despite being initially refused permission by the local council. Flamingo Land have attempted to gain planning permission for their resort at Balloch for the past decade, with their first application failing in 2019. Their latest bid was unanimously rejected by the board of Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park at a public hearing in September of last year. This followed a campaign led by Ross Greer which collected over 155,000 individual objections to the plans, as well as objections from the National Trust for Scotland, Woodland Trust, Scottish Environment Protection Agency, the local community council and the Park's own expert planning officers. Flamingo Land lodged an appeal against this decision shortly before Christmas, seeking to have the rejection overturned by the Scottish Government and secure consent for their plans, which include two hotels, a waterpark, over 370 car parking spaces, a hundred woodland lodges, monorail, and more. Jim Paterson, development director for Lomond Banks, previously described the planning victory a "real milestone moment for the Lomond Banks vision, and has been a long time in the making". He added: "Our proposals have been informed by more than two years of positive engagement with the local community and key stakeholders. "At the heart of our plans is a commitment to sustainable investment, local jobs, and a long-term partnership with the area, backed by our legally binding Lomond Promise to ensure the future prosperity of Balloch and beyond."
NBC News
2 hours ago
- NBC News
Stocks and U.S. dollar rally as Trump tariffs hit court roadblock
SYDNEY — Asian shares and Wall Street futures jumped in Asia on Thursday after a U.S. federal court blocked President Donald Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs from going into effect, sending the dollar up on safe haven currencies. The little-known Manhattan-based Court of International Trade ruled that Trump overstepped his authority by imposing his April 2 across-the-board duties on imports from U.S. trade partners. The White House quickly appealed the decision, and could take it all the way to the Supreme Court if needed, but in the meantime it offered some hope that Trump might back away from the highest tariff levels he had threatened. 'It's long been suggested that the emergency powers Trump has used to implement tariffs were unconstitutional and that the power to enact tariffs sits with Congress,' said Kyle Rodda, a senior financial analyst at 'Should the markets get their way, the courts could delay and then deny these tariffs, removing one massive risk and undoubtedly stoking risk appetite.' It could also encourage U.S. trading partners to stall any trade negotiations they are having with the White House while waiting to see how the case is resolved. However, analysts at Goldman Sachs noted the order does not block sectoral levies and there were other legal avenues for Trump to impose across-the-board and country-specific tariffs. 'This ruling represents a setback for the administration's tariff plans and increases uncertainty but might not change the final outcome for most major U.S. trading partners,' analyst Alec Phillips wrote in a note. Investors reacted by embracing equities and Japan's Nikkei quickly rose 1.7%, while South Korean shares gained 1.8% to a nine-month top. MSCI's broadest index of Asia-Pacific shares outside Japan edged up 0.5%, while Chinese blue chips firmed 0.6%. The ripples were felt worldwide as EUROSTOXX 50 futures rose 1.3%, while FTSE futures gained 0.8% and DAX futures 1.1%. S&P 500 futures climbed 1.6%, while Nasdaq futures rose 2.0%. The latter had already been lifted by relief over earnings from Nvidia, which beat sales estimates. The chipmaker and AI diva also projected strong revenue for the current quarter, sending its shares up 4.4% after hours. That news helped offset a Financial Times report that the White House had ordered U.S. firms that offer software used to design semiconductors to stop selling their services to Chinese groups. The New York Times separately reported the United States had suspended some sales to China of critical U.S. technologies, including those related to jet engines, semiconductors and certain chemicals. The news of the court decision hit traditional safe haven currencies, lifting the dollar 0.7% on the Swiss franc to 0.8327. It gained 0.7% on the Japanese yen to 145.86 yen, while the euro dipped 0.4% to $1.1245. Yields on 10-year Treasuries rose 3 basis points to 4.51% and markets further shaved the chance of a Federal Reserve rate cut anytime soon. Minutes of the last Fed meeting showed 'almost all participants commented on the risk that inflation could prove to be more persistent than expected' due to Trump's tariffs. A rate cut in July is now seen as just a 22% chance, while September has come into around 60% having been more than fully priced a month ago. In commodity markets, gold slipped 0.5% to $3,271 an ounce. Oil prices extended a rally first begun on supply concerns as OPEC+ agreed to leave their output policy unchanged and as the U.S. barred Chevron from exporting Venezuelan crude.
